Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:17:19.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dimensional and Angular Measurements from Microvascular Corrosion Casts: 2D vs. 3D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Minnich B.
Affiliation:
Dept. of Vascular- and Performance Biology, University of Salzburg Hellbrunnerstr. 24, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria(Europe)
Sommer R.
Affiliation:
Dept. of Vascular- and Performance Biology, University of Salzburg Hellbrunnerstr. 24, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria(Europe)
A. Lametschwandtner
Affiliation:
Dept. of Vascular- and Performance Biology, University of Salzburg Hellbrunnerstr. 24, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria(Europe)
Get access

Extract

In microvascular network analysis on vascular corrosion casts (VCC) detection of vascular relations between distant regions within vascular territories deserves to operate the SEM at low magnification (< 500x). As a result in low powered SEM micrographs of VCCs vessels may remain in the wide zone of focal depth (Dƒ), but can approach upper and lower focal planes of this zone (Fig.l). Their lengths, thus may severely be underestimated when measuring in 2D. The differences in lengths in 2D (L3D) and in 3D (L3D) of a distance L between points p1 and p2 (Fig.3) is obvious, denoting

While data from 2D-morphometry (1, 2, 3) have to be corrected for dimensional measurements in the direction of tilt by expanding the dimensions by [l/cos(tilt angle)] (4), modern 3D-morphometry techniques (5, 6, 7) consider the perspective projections by calculating the parallax in their working algorithms.

Type
Applications and Advances in Vascular Corrosion Casting in Microvascular Research
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

1.Kratky, R.G., et al. Scanning Microscopy 3, (1989) 937943Google Scholar
2.Nelson, A.C., Scanning Microscopy 1, (1987) 17331747Google Scholar
3.Zeith, R. et al. BEDO 17, (1984) 203208Google Scholar
4.Kratky, R.G. and Roach, M.R., Can. J. Physiol. Pharm. 65, (1987) 18641871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Komatsu, F. et al. Journal of Electron Microscopy 48 (4), (1999) 407415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Malkusch, W. et al. Analytical Cell Pathology 9, (1995) 6981Google Scholar
7.Minnich, B. et al. Journal of Microscopy 195 (1), (1999) 2333CrossRefGoogle Scholar